California police departments do not have a blanket right to conceal the names of officers involved in shootings, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Long Beach police union, concluding there is a presumption that the public has a right to know the identities of officers involved in shooting incidents. While the justices indicated there may be circumstances that would permit keeping the information secret, particularly if an officer's safety might be jeopardized, departments do not have a sweeping right to withhold the officers' identities in the aftermath of shootings.

"We reject that blanket rule," Justice Joyce Kennard, who retired this spring with the case pending, wrote for the majority.

Justice Ming Chin was the lone dissent, siding with the Long Beach police union, which was joined by some other law enforcement groups in the case. Chin argued that the information is exempt from public records laws because it threatens police rights to privacy.

The decision is unlikely to have much immediate impact on police departments in the Bay Area, which typically release the names of officers involved in shootings, although in some instances after a period time has lapsed. San Jose police, for example, do release the names, and the city did not take a position in the state Supreme Court case.

The case stems from a challenge by the Los Angeles Times, joined by other media organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union, which in 2010 sought the names of Long Beach officers involved in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man. The Times also made a request under the state Public Records Act for the names of any Long Beach officers involved in shootings over a five-year period.

The Long Beach police officers' association balked at the request, moving to block the disclosures in the courts. Both a trial judge and a state appeals court rejected the union's arguments, prompting the appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made it clear there might be situations where police departments can make a strong showing that the reasons for keeping the﻿ identities of the officers under wraps outweigh the public's right to know the names. But the court found Long Beach did not meet that standard.

"Understandable are the general safety concerns of officers who fear retaliation from angry members of the community after an officer-involved shooting, especially when the shooting results in the death of an unarmed person," the court wrote. "But the Legislature ... has not gone so far as to protect the names of all officers involved in such shootings."